The Chainlink

ISEC Bicycling Campaign Idea

Dear fellow bicyclists,

What bicycling issue do you think is worthy of gathering signatures?  ISEC (Illinois Student Environmental Coalition) is asking bicyclists of Illinois for a bicycling issue that college students of Illinois can promote as an advocacy campaign which gathers signatures to support the message, and then deliver the signatures to Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, Governor Pat Quinn, or Senator Dick Durbin.  For example, should we make a statement regarding an issue of bicycling safety, buffered bikes lanes, connectivity, law improvements for bicyclists, or policy changes regarding infrastructure to include pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure with every road project? 

What single issue would you want to promote?  Provide your top three bicycling issues.  Please post any ideas here, or email me, Mark: mkenseth at greenstudents dot org. Also, check out the ISEC website.

Last year's climate action campaign brought roughly 4,000 signed postcards to the senator's office.

Thank you for your input, and look for me at Critical Mass or other events around town gathering signatures.

Mark

Views: 79

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mark Kenseth on March 8, 2011 at 9:46am

Thanks, JoeTV, Liz, Duppie, Stefanie, Kevin (nice links), Glen, Anne.  I'm making a list. 

Btw...having an architecture degree, I would think that bike rack installation would have measurements in the codes, i.e. distance from a wall.  I've seen this problem, and I can't believe it.  When I drew a bathroom, we had to have measurements for everything: how high off the ground and distance from the wall the toilet paper holder was, the position of the mirror...etc.  It was amazing, but if you didn't give a dimension, the installer would just put it anywhere they thought looked good.

Anyway.  Keep 'em coming.  I hope to have something soon.  Still trying to talk to a couple peeps.

Permalink Reply by Liz on March 8, 2011 at 11:18am

This is a great point Kevin,  many coworkers who live closer to the office than I, and own bikes mention they don't have anywhere safe for their bike during the day.  Our building management refuses to take bike commuting seriously, despite have adequate space to allow indoor bike parking, and wont accept any of our suggestions for possible entrance/egress with the bikes into the building. Even some of the security gaurds have said they don't ride because there is no where safe to park.  These are the people who are stationed at the entrances to the building and could check on their bikes many times throughout the day.

 

I think safe pathways to work, should be concurrent to safe bike parking.  Short term racks are not the solution to commuting to work. 

Kevin Conway said:

The New York City Bicycle Survey was conducted for Bike Month in 2006, and published in May of 2007. It was an online survey which was posted beginning May 1, 2006 for six months and a total of 1086 people took the survey.

 

I went back to The Study and wanted to clarify the results which I mentioned yesterday. I remembered it as being a pure percentage-it’s not. The question was “ If you do not commute by bicycle to work, why not?” and respondents were asked to rank each of seven dimensions on a scale of 1 to 5 (most important).  51% of respondents ranked “No safe storage facility for my bike” most important, with “Too much traffic/driver behavior” coming in second at 48%. (p. 15)

 

The findings were deemed significant enough that they appear as item 9 in the summary of findings; i.e. “The most common reason that non-commuting cyclists do not commute by bike is because of driver behavior/traffic and lack of safe storage at work.” (p. 1)

 

The Bicycle Access to Office Buildings Law went into effect on December 11, 2009. The NYDOT link is here. 

 

Not quite how I remembered it, but I still think it’s significant. In terms of designing your advocacy program, the affected offices, the potential signatories, and City Council are all conveniently located in the Loop.

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on March 9, 2011 at 1:37am
I'm with Stefanie Seskin on this one. It's all in how you interpret it. There are many excuses that can be made. It can be easy to say, "Yes, we considered it, but the costs were too high" and the respondent doesn't reveal the details of their consideration or cost analysis.

When Critical Mass stopped traffic on the North Avenue bridge in 2007 after it had been reconstructed without bike lanes but a Complete Streets policy, the city responded saying the bridge was designed before the Complete Streets policy went into effect. And that it was a state-run project (North Avenue = state highway, Route 64).

Should we need complete streets policies to demand consideration for alternative modes? Probably not. Now we have a policy, but with weak wording that lacks directive. It's time to bump up the policy to an actionable order (or ordinance) outlining concrete and measurable steps planners/engineers/designers/legislators must take so that the intentions of the Complete Streets policy are fulfilled.



Duppie said:
Maybe Active Trans or Steve Vance can chime in here, but I understood Complete Streets design practices to only apply when a streetscape is redesigned. A simple repaving job does not qualify as a redesign. I guess replacing steel grates is similar to repaving

Liz said:

Known yes, implimented no.  There have been many recent projects that have and are dropping the ball on making small but impactful improvements to cycling and pedestrians as they are completed.  Take the bridges over Division, these where redone last year, yet during that process plates for cyclinsts where not added. Its a small line item that should be included in larger project and that is just not occuring.  There is much talk about how road way planners are going to start incorporating complete street, but there have been far too many years of transportation officials hiding behind "its a slow process".   

 

How can we sucsussfully advocate to change existing streets when new construction isn't considering it.

Joe TV said:

In today's day and age, most planners should be aware of the complete streets idea.  I don't know if it's official, but the term has been bounced around in Chicago planning.  I seem to recall that Chicago already operates under theses precepts, but I could be wrong.
Permalink Reply by Mark Kenseth on March 15, 2011 at 4:06pm

Hey, guys. Thanks to discussions with you on Chainlink and with Howard on the phone, ISEC has decided to go with the issue of bike parking, written up as a letter and supported by signatures on postcards and online.  We will then give the letter and signatures to the mayor (or someone), probably while on a bike or outside next to a bike rack :)

 

I'll be at Critical Mass gathering signatures and passing out ISEC website info so people can sign the letter online.  Look for me with some big ISEC sign.  I will also be in Springfield March 30 to gather more signatures from students and spread the word to university leaders of Illinois.  I know it's not a statewide campaign per se, but we felt that the issue, as stated on Rahm's campaign website, could be tackled in Chicago and then followed by other cities throughout Illinois. 

 

I'm working on the postcard and the website so those will be ready for March 25.  The letter itself could use your input.  If you'd like to read it and/or provide feedback (e.g. Anne's zoning loophole or Kevin's input on parking facilities), please email me at mkenseth at greenstudents dot org, and I'll email you the letter.  Or...should I post it here?

 

Anne, if you can send me the loophole you're working on, maybe someone here (ELPC) could look at it to help out.

 

Mark

ISEC intern

 

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on March 15, 2011 at 4:21pm
Excellent choice! You may also want to reach out to Chris Gagnon at CDOT. He's the Bicycle Parking Program Manager and he does free consults with building managers in the Loop about indoor parking solutions for tenants. He might be able to provide some additional input.
Permalink Reply by Mark Kenseth on March 15, 2011 at 4:44pm
Great.  Thanks.  I look forward to your signature :)

Kevin Conway said:
Excellent choice! You may also want to reach out to Chris Gagnon at CDOT. He's the Bicycle Parking Program Manager and he does free consults with building managers in the Loop about indoor parking solutions for tenants. He might be able to provide some additional input.
Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on March 15, 2011 at 5:08pm

How to quantify/crystalize in the short time available?

Maybe demand a certain number of new bike racks in 2011?

I believe they had only 300 racks to install in 2009, and may have only been moving them from one place to another in 2010. Having just pulled most parking meters, this is not the time to stop spending city funds on bike racks. Chris probably can't speak to this due to his role-- hopefully someone else in the know will get in touch with you off-forum (hint hint.)

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on March 15, 2011 at 5:11pm
"hint hint"??????
Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on March 15, 2011 at 5:43pm
Yes.

Kevin Conway said:
"hint hint"??????
Permalink Reply by Mark Kenseth on March 15, 2011 at 8:19pm
Rahm's campaign goal was to double the current bike parking, from 12,000 to 24,000.  How long is his first term?  In the letter, I mention his 24,000 number, whether he does it in his first year or his last is up to him. 

H3N3 said:
Yes.

Kevin Conway said:
"hint hint"??????
Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on March 16, 2011 at 8:38am

Will get back to you shortly on the zoning loophole.

Permalink Reply by Mark Kenseth on March 18, 2011 at 10:34pm

Hey, all.  It's up:  http://greenstudents.org/?page_id=789

Let the signatures begin. (You may not be in school, so just fill in a school you once went to...or want to go to.)

We should have a new picture for the campaign up next week. Also, I spoke with my architecture friend, and he's providing some actual drawing references for bike parking installation that we can add to the letter.

Thanks again!

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service